The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

NoDrama said:
Ahh the power of the quote, you said all those things and more.
Click to expand...

And you did not demonstrate any contradiction if that is what you're going for.

What he doesn't support is the murder of 400,000 Americans to enforce it. Obviously you do support that kind of genocide.
Click to expand...

ummm. You do realize the south started succeeding before Lincoln was sworn in and they attacked the united states first right? And that Lincoln didn't deliver the emancipation proclamation until the war was 6months old?

So if by support genocide you mean supporting people who were defending themselves against an aggressor who attempted to subvert democracy in order to enslave a race of people, then yes. I totally support genocide. :roll:

That is the single worst attempt at revising history I've ever seen. You should be embarrassed for making that post.
 
sync0s said:
The civil rights act of 1964 actually imposed rules on private property owners to obey the government. Remove all race and equality points of this and this is the bottom line. It was a law that violated our constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Really? You're advocating for segregation right? Do you really believe the ability to oppress a race of people is an essential right?
 
Dan Kone said:
You do realize the south started succeeding before Lincoln was sworn in and they attacked the united states first right? And that Lincoln didn't deliver the emancipation proclamation until the war was 6months old?
Click to expand...

false. the emancipation proclamation was issued about two years into the war if i remember correctly. it was kind of a gimmick by lincoln to rally support for the war when the north ws not faring too well.

just had to point that out.
 
Dan Kone said:
And you did not demonstrate any contradiction if that is what you're going for.



ummm. You do realize the south started succeeding before Lincoln was sworn in and they attacked the united states first right? And that Lincoln didn't deliver the emancipation proclamation until the war was 6months old?

So if by support genocide you mean supporting people who were defending themselves against an aggressor who attempted to subvert democracy in order to enslave a race of people, then yes. I totally support genocide. :roll:

That is the single worst attempt at revising history I've ever seen. You should be embarrassed for making that post.
Click to expand...
so why did the south want to secede?

The war was coming up on its THIRD year before Lincoln issued the Emancipation. You should really check your facts before trying to make a point.

400,000 people did not die at fort Sumter.


BTW The Proclamation only freed slaves in the confederate states, they were already free in the northern states, this is perhaps the reason the confederacy wanted to secede, but then again I MUST be revising history because im sure there was some other reason for the confederacy wanting to secede right?

you might want to retake a high school history class
 
UncleBuck said:
false. the emancipation proclamation was issued about two years into the war if i remember correctly. it was kind of a gimmick by lincoln to rally support for the war when the north ws not faring too well.

just had to point that out.
Click to expand...

Sort of. He announced it 6 months into the war but didn't make it an official executive order until the next year.

edit - my bad. 1 year and 6 months.
 
NoDrama said:
so why did the south want to secede?

The war was coming up on its THIRD year before Lincoln issued the Emancipation. You should really check your facts before trying to make a point.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who just tried to make the claim that the north committed genocide by participating in the civil war.

400,000 people did not die at fort Sumter.
Click to expand...

And? The south still started the civil war.

you might want to retake a high school history class
Click to expand...

No, that would be you. You are pretending that the north committed genocide by defending itself.
 
Dan Kone said:
Says the guy who just tried to make the claim that the north committed genocide by participating in the civil war.



And? The south still started the civil war.



No, that would be you. You are pretending that the north committed genocide by defending itself.
Click to expand...
LOL avoiding the question because answering it will reveal something you don't want to be revealed? Why did the Confederacy Want to Secede?
 
NoDrama said:
LOL avoiding the question because answering it will reveal something you don't want to be revealed? Why did the Confederacy Want to Secede?
Click to expand...

Because they wanted to continue to enslave a race of people. I'm not avoiding anything. You claimed that the north defending itself against an army that was trying to subvert democracy = genocide. You're the one who's backing away from that, as you should. That's an obscene distortion of history.
 
They fought over "States Rights"...which included the fact that the evil south wanted to keep their way of living which was using and abusing slaves..
 
Dan Kone said:
Because they wanted to continue to enslave a race of people. I'm not avoiding anything. You claimed that the north defending itself against an army that was trying to subvert democracy = genocide. You're the one who's backing away from that, as you should. That's an obscene distortion of history.
Click to expand...
No, what I did was support my argument that Dr Paul does not believe in slavery and it was slavery that caused the civil war and ultimately 400,000 deaths. Were you not paying attention? Dr paul does not support all those deaths that were a result of the north imposing its anti slavery laws on the south. Get it now?

Its like being against the war, but support the troops none the less. Being against the war does not make one a terrorist sympathizer.

The border states that did not rebel still had slaves, the proclamation only freed the slaves in the confederate states, the loyal border states were allowed to keep slaves. The proclamation did not END slavery.
 
HAH london, the evil south? you just characterized 1/4 of all the states as Evil. The foot never really travels far from the mouth does it?
 
NoDrama said:
Dr paul does not support all those deaths that were a result of the north imposing its anti slavery laws on the south. Get it now?
Click to expand...

still revising history. Lincoln wasn't even sworn in yet letting alone passing anti-slavery laws when the south succeeded.

You're going really far out of your way to twist history in order to justify a really horrible position.
 
londonfog said:
They fought over "States Rights"...which included the fact that the evil south wanted to keep their way of living which was using and abusing slaves..
Click to expand...

Yeah. The right to enslave a race. What a noble cause. Just like the civil rights act denied rights to property owners. The right to oppresses people based on racial discrimination.

Who cares about the whole "all men created equal thing". That's not important compared to the rights of the south to act like bigoted oppressive assholes.
 
Dan Kone said:
Really? You're advocating for segregation right? Do you really believe the ability to oppress a race of people is an essential right?
Click to expand...

Are you stupid? In what way did any of my above posts say I ADVOCATED segregation? Read dude, please, read.

In all actuality, the government had full right to pass an act that desegregated public facilities. Perfect. Imposing on privately owned property is actually infringing on an essential right: property rights.

Dig your head out of your ass and stop being persuaded by the cover story and look at the details. Slavery is wrong, segregation is wrong, but our government is the main product of creation for both.
 
Opposition of the 1964 civil rights act does not make you a racist, nor a sexist, unless it is founded on the ideal that blacks or women are not equal. If your opposition is founded on any other grounds, calling the opposition a racist is actually just a hate mongering argument meant to defame the opposition, and it in no way is a sign of any kind of intelligent debate.

What can be fair for one group(s), can also not be fair for another group(s), which can also include the former. Our founding fathers said that ALL rights need to be protected, including the rights of the minority, as well as the majority.

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
Click to expand...

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”–Abraham Lincoln, March 21, 1864.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top